Categories Government

7 days 30 days All time Recent Popular
A 2012 recording of former Belarusian KGB chief suggests President Alexander Lukashenko sanctioned assassinations of opponents abroad. Specifically mentioned is Belarus-born journalist Pavel Sheremet, who was killed by a car bomb in central Kyiv, Ukraine, in July 2016.


Tape doesn't prove Belarus killed Sheremet but adds new wrinkle to unsolved case & weight to one of 3 "tracks" of investigation: organized & carried out by Russians; ...Ukrainians; ...Belarusians. Details about how KGB wanted Sheremet killed also similar to what really happened.


Ukraine arrested and is currently trying 3 suspects in Kyiv for Sheremet's murder. All have denied involvement and much of Ukrainian civil society has sided with them. Legal experts also say authorities' case is built upon weak evidence. I wrote about it:

I've covered the Sheremet murder from day one. I wrote a lengthy investigation about it for @pressfreedom in 2016-17: https://t.co/fFr4bAJdEy I found many failings on the part of Ukrainian authorities, who made their preference clear from the beginning: that Russia was behind it.

Another investigation into Sheremet's murder by @OCCRP and @Slidstvo_info also found failings in the official investigation as well as possible links to Ukrainian security service involvement.
Conspiracy theorists often sound rational, such as this video. He makes a good point that people simply dismiss their evidence ("you shouldn't say that") without taking the time to determine the truth.

I want to discuss why.


The issue is that it's not us rational people who won't take the time to determine the truth, but the conspiracy theorists. They keep dredging up things they don't understand and demand that rational people explain them.

Such is the case in the report cited in the video. The person in video hasn't spent the time to determine the truth about that document. He doesn't understand what it contains. Yet, he demands we explain it to

He claims it's by a military intelligence expert and that's why it's credible. It's not -- it's by a guy Joshua Merritt who worked in the motor pool who flunked out of his intro to military intelligence

No, this is not an "ad hominem". It's them saying the "evidence" is credible because he's an expert. Thus, we should point out the guy is not an expert, and that the "evidence" must be judged on its own merits.
The joint congressional session just started. Pence had already issued a statement rejecting the Trump “theory” that a VP can unilaterally ignore certified electors, consistent with @maggieNYT reporting.
But Pence didn’t read it live

Here is Pence’s statement rejecting the crazy coup theory, but stretching to “both sides” this debate with a strawman: “Others believe that electoral votes should never be challenged in a joint session... Neither view is correct.”

Who says “never”? Sincerely I have no idea.


3/ As the states are called alphabetically, @amyklobuchar recognizes Arizona's electors for Biden as valid.
Far-right nut from Arizona @DrPaulGosar rises to challenge the Arizona electors, and cheers and applause erupt from the nut gallery.
Shame on them.

4/ @SteveScalise speaks first with a failing grade on con law. He says Article II gives the electoral vote process only to state legislatures.

He ignores that state legislatures PASS LAWS THAT CREATE A PROCESS FOR RUNNING ELECTIONS.

This is so insulting to basic literacy.

5/ Article II: "Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors"

What does Scalise think Article II requires? That state legislators do all the counting of all votes? That the Framers did not know about legislation?
Idiocy.
@GOP
@DNC
@KamalaHarris
@VP
@AOC
@LeaderMcConnell

So since President Joe Biden has campaigned on, and his message yesterday was, a message of

UNITY and HEALING,

let’s “unify”. Here’s THE point of departure: Let go of the vindictive desire to
I've been watching for reports around the country all day. So far, only Michigan has had anything more than a few rightwing protesters, but that could change closer to the inauguration.

I'm following @freep's live coverage of the Michigan Capitol here.

Where I am seeing small groups-- average of 3-5 people-- it's Boogaloo Boys. In Columbus, Ohio, and Salem, Oregon, for example.

.@jordangreentcb reports a dozen rightwing types skulking around in Raleigh, North Carolina, which is interesting.


.@jason_a_w is live-tweeting five Boogaloo Boys in Salem, Oregon. As he notes, they’re outnumbered 3:1 by the journalists on scene.


In New Jersey, @DLamontJenkins reports “one old guy, and he isn’t anywhere near the Statehouse, and he’s pissed.”
You might want to ask yourself how an Air Force veteran ended up in a mob storming the Capitol, though.

What - and who - pushed her into thinking it was the right thing to do.

You might want to consider that many people like her are still out there.


Crazy thought, but what if we started focusing our efforts on fighting the sources of disinformation that pushed Ashli over the edge.

What if we taught people how to spot propaganda -- especially from their own political side?

If you're left leaning - like me - consider left wing propaganda.

(What? There's no such thing!)

Sure there is. The left scares its voters, same as the right.

(Yeah, but we scare them about REAL crises, not racist nonsense.)

Hmm.

The core idea isn't about left vs right. It's about power, and manipulating people to obtain that power.

And no, I'm not saying that #BothSides practice this to the same degree.

I'm saying we all have blind spots when we agree with what's being said and who's saying it.

When you're inclined to believe some thing A, it might be easy to get you to believe a related thing B. Then thing C, and D, and so on.

Until eventually you believe thing Q.

And as crazy as thing Q is, there are a disturbingly large number of letters that come after it.
THREAD
I received numerous questions regarding my yesterday’s post. Why regional transmission projects are always given priority over the development of indigenous generation, knowing that Afghanistan will remain dependent on imported power? What went wrong?

I have already described the disadvantages of relying on imported electricity in this thread👇.
The legitimate question we all have is, why did the Afghan government and international donors opt for bringing electricity from the neighboring countries?


The answer is not easy and includes a mix of bureaucratic, social, economic and political considerations. Since 2002, energy sector planning efforts have been undertaken by a number of international development partners.

This has allowed for significant levels of investment and expertise to be placed in the service of Afghanistan's power sector. At the same time, the role of the Afghan government has often been marginal, as a plethora of donors have pursued their own agendas and projects.

As a result, this has led to a lack of coordination, off-budget project financing, insufficient planning and prioritization of projects, and a process that has lent itself to wasteful spending and unmet goals.